A thread in the draft forum prompted me to go back over my #'s, update them, redo some of them, and adjust the sorting. So here it is, my numerical analysis of the OLB's in the draft.

I added them all to my database. My database is simple yet complex. It uses all of the basic combine measurements and a few simple formulas to analyze those numbers. My database encompasses every 3-4 OLB drafted in the last 5 drafts, plus notable UDFA's. I try to be as complete as possible. Some players are missing, (notably Elvis Dumervil), unfortunately those players do not have useful numbers available.

All the players are rated via a simple rating system. Overcomplicating the rating is a waste of time. Here is the key:

Obviously I had to choose a starter for some teams. I didn't bother to make "he's a backup but should be starting" or "he's starting but he sucks" assumptions. But I did have to assume the starter for some teams. The 2010 guys in red are obviously not injury busts, but they couldn't be evaluated because of injury, so they get lumped into that group.

A couple other minor matters, gray text are assumed values. Dark violet text is pro day data. All other data is combine data (I used combine data wherever possible).

The basic methodology is to sort the players into various groups, to concentrate the good ones. After adding another draft and more prospects, I got to thinking that the way I had it was a bit too complex, and wasn't necessarily telling me the right things, nor was it portraying things as I think they should.

Therefore I've gone through and questioned all of my assumptions, and redone the sorting. Why I try to capture, what the numbers are saying, is the degree of risk invovled with each player, as the numbers see it.

Explosive power is a general measure of the amount of force the player can generate coming out of their stance.

The 10, 40, and agility measures come from graphing the drill vs. mass for all players, and finding the equation of best fit linear trendline of the data. It is a grade vs. the average of the drill for a given player mass.

Twitch something that I came up with similar to the fairly well known 40 time minus the shuttle time, that uses a 10 yd split instead of the 40. Since it is a 20 yd vs. 20 yd comparison, guys that can change directions fast will have a lower number, and they will appear sudden on tape. The bit at the end is a modifier that rewards fast guys and penalizes slow guys as it is meant to approximate how sudden a player looks with their movements. Lower is better.

High Risk:

First things first, I went and filtered off every player that scored higher than a 1.05 in the explosive power formula. Those players don't seem to be affected by doing well or poor in other drills. Probably an incorrect assmuption, but lacking a test case of a guy that does terrible otherwise, it will have to stick for now.

Other than that, I sorted guys by the twitch measure, the first group here are guys that scored 1.20 or worse in the twitch formula. It is sorted by draft position. This is a very high risk group, draft with extreme caution. Wimbley is the only one to amount to anything thus far (even though he isn't' with the team that drafted him any longer), but overall he is probably the best across the board in this group workout-wise.

One thing to note about Wimbley, guys that run a 3 cone under 7 typically will have a scouting report that reads that they have an outside speed rush in their arsenal. The drill isn't all that bad at approximating the movements required for the rush. While that is but a facet of OLB play, it is one, and can go a long way to explaining why Wimbley is the lone bright spot pretty much in this group (Ayers is a yellow too, but aside from technically being a starter, he hasn't shown much).

Moderate Risk:

These guys all measured between 1.10 and 1.19 in the twitch formula. The group is sorted by draft position. There area only a limited number of sub-7.0 3 cone guys, so I didn't split them out.

Success has gone up markedly here over the last group, however noone in this group is beating down Canton's door. Players in this group seem to have a very definite ceiling, and though they make make good complimentary players, you probably are not looking at a pass rusher to be feared.

Still, players are worth a draft pick. Like I said, moderate risk, no notable busts, however keep your expectations in check with these guys if you want to be happy. Solid has to be good enough.

Mid-Low Risk:

You can see a trend developing. These are all the guys that scored under a 1.10 in the twitch formula, however that also ran slower than a 7.0 3 cone. Again sorted by draft position. Babin will forever be considered a bust by the team that drafted him, however he did record double digit sacks and go to the pro bowl this year as a DE. Laboy has always been pretty good at getting to the QB. He's just always banged up. Mid round guys are defeintely worth taking a flier on.

One thing that holds true for this group, of the ones that got it going, it took them all a while to do so. None of them really did much early in their careers.

Low Risk 1:

This is the other half of the last group, all the guys that both had a score of less than 1.10 in the twitch formula, and had a 3 cone time of under 7.0. Again sorted by draft position.

One thing to take note of is how most of the lesser players are slow. Show up in this group and a guy has a good chance of working out for you. Draft players in this group with confidence.

Low Risk 2:

Every player that scored above a 1.05 in the power formula.

Sort of unbeleivable, isn't it. Maybe Anderson and Barwin will buck the trend and struggle. Maybe Moch will bust.

Draft with confidence in this group._________________

Title Town USA wrote:

Waldo was right!

Last edited by Waldo on Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:30 am; edited 5 times in total

Dude, ur posts blow my fricken mind.
How come you have Zombo as a starter over Brad Jones?
And what is Moch's current draft value at, considering the group he's in and the success seems like hed be an excellent compliment to mathews._________________clown

I know he hasn't had much pub as a potential 3-4 backer, but I am wondering where K.J. Wright fits into your analysis. I'm starting to think he may be one of those "4-3" LB's our brass takes a good, long look at._________________

I know he hasn't had much pub as a potential 3-4 backer, but I am wondering where K.J. Wright fits into your analysis. I'm starting to think he may be one of those "4-3" LB's our brass takes a good, long look at.

I really despise all the "watch the tape" comments, because numbers DO matter. All of them. Welcome to Waldo's wide world of numbers.

I don't mean to come in here and contradict, but people really imply that? I've rarely seen it.

I think what most in that camp would adhere to is that numbers certainly matter, but they're not the sole determinant of a successful football player. In other words, you can gather a lot from watching a player on tape in addition to examining the numbers. I don't know if this is even contradictory to what you're implying, but I just really have a hard time thinking people who "know football" would stick strictly to tape when observing a player's abilities.

Good post though, for sure._________________

KingTarvaris7 wrote:

last year's vikings were far better than the packers team that just won

I know he hasn't had much pub as a potential 3-4 backer, but I am wondering where K.J. Wright fits into your analysis. I'm starting to think he may be one of those "4-3" LB's our brass takes a good, long look at.

Between Victor Butler and Jarvis Moss in the general low explosion group._________________

I really despise all the "watch the tape" comments, because numbers DO matter. All of them. Welcome to Waldo's wide world of numbers.

I don't mean to come in here and contradict, but people really imply that? I've rarely seen it.

Oh its around. Especially on TV. That whole macho "I don't need no stinkin' numbers, I watch tape" thing that some TV/media scouts do. Plenty on FF are the same way (not so much on the Packer forum)._________________

Title Town USA wrote:

Waldo was right!

Last edited by Waldo on Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

I know he hasn't had much pub as a potential 3-4 backer, but I am wondering where K.J. Wright fits into your analysis. I'm starting to think he may be one of those "4-3" LB's our brass takes a good, long look at.

He would be Jarvis Moss, exactly.

Tied w/ him in 40-shuttle in the Low Explosion group.

Just above, they would be sorted by the jumps first (67.0 for Wright, 65.5 for Moss), and tied in the 40-Shuttle._________________

I know he hasn't had much pub as a potential 3-4 backer, but I am wondering where K.J. Wright fits into your analysis. I'm starting to think he may be one of those "4-3" LB's our brass takes a good, long look at.

He would be Jarvis Moss, exactly.

Tied w/ him in 40-shuttle in the Low Explosion group.

Just above, they would be sorted by the jumps first (67.0 for Wright, 65.5 for Moss), and tied in the 40-Shuttle.

You should write up an executable program to accept input and sort into a database. Would make things super simple.

That one backup blemish in the speed rusher group (Worilds) isn't a bad player so much as its a young Pit OLB. They tend to wait a bit before bringing the young ones out of the garage._________________